Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 22:20:58 GMT
since the manager was appointed almost all our best results,best runs of results or storming fight backs have been using a straight forward 4-4-2 formation usually with width from wide midfield and overlapping full backs and one defensive midfielder and one creative one. if we play 4-3-3 we end up with matty on the left wing which is such a waste and with 3-5-2 our wing backs look slightly uncomfortable and usually at least one of our centre-backs gets caught out wide and looks lost. the other issue is maybe our manager is trying to keep too many players happy with such a large squad, should he discard some and reduce the scale of the player rotation? please note darrell clarke is actually my all time favourite rovers manager but i feel these are valid discussion points. thoughts please?
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Oct 18, 2016 22:24:11 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
Post by DTGas on Oct 18, 2016 22:33:16 GMT
I always prefer 442 as we look much more organised and every player knows exactly where they should be and their responsibilities.
But, 1) Have we got good enough wingers to play the system? and 2) Who do you partner Lines with in the middle? (Imo he's a starter every week)
Players like Colkett, Boateng and Sinclair probably need to be in a three man midfield...
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Oct 18, 2016 22:55:58 GMT
I always prefer 442 as we look much more organised and every player knows exactly where they should be and their responsibilities. But, 1) Have we got good enough wingers to play the system? and 2) Who do you partner Lines with in the middle? (Imo he's a starter every week) Players like Colkett, Boateng and Sinclair probably need to be in a three man midfield... Agreed. Mansell can feel a bit hard done by but is he good enough at this level? Him and lines have been our best midfield duo in a 4 4 2 the last two years. I think a match fit Boateng would partner Lines well but he left the midfield too exposed when he played with Sinclair in one game so I wouldn't want to play him in a two unless he was sharper. Colkett and lines only works if we're chasing the game. I think we have good enough wingers though, Montano Moore and Bodin are all good enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 23:31:24 GMT
After watching that tonight,yes please
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Oct 18, 2016 23:32:05 GMT
Our formation in first half was ridiculous, the midfield was so narrow that taylor was "trying" to mark their right winger. Every attack they were getting around us and then through, we couldnt cope.
For me we either play a traditional 4-4-2 or as we did on Saturday and games before 5-3-2. The diamond formation in midfield just offered no width or cover to the flat back 4.
I would say we were extremely lucky to get a point tonight, poorest i seen for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Oct 18, 2016 23:39:56 GMT
I always prefer 442 as we look much more organised and every player knows exactly where they should be and their responsibilities. But, 1) Have we got good enough wingers to play the system? and 2) Who do you partner Lines with in the middle? (Imo he's a starter every week) Players like Colkett, Boateng and Sinclair probably need to be in a three man midfield... I would play 5 3 2 personally. Lines colckett and Boateng in midfield. I cant understand why Boateng cant get a game. He was excellent at Sheff Utd. I would like DC to stop d!cking about with tge defence to ideally not that will ever happen because the way he works. But we have a different backline every game can only think that contributes to our inability to keep a clean sheet. Thank god we have taylor too, in Jan if Wael said DC here you go sign someone, i would love to see another striker come in. Gaffeney and Harrison make great impact players but arent prolific enough.
|
|
|
Post by bluegas on Oct 18, 2016 23:42:52 GMT
Our formation in first half was ridiculous, the midfield was so narrow that taylor was "trying" to mark their right winger. Every attack they were getting around us and then through, we couldnt cope. For me we either play a traditional 4-4-2 or as we did on Saturday and games before 5-3-2. The diamond formation in midfield just offered no width or cover to the flat back 4. I would say we were extremely lucky to get a point tonight, poorest i seen for a long time. Yeah - the harder we work & the more we try the luckier we get.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Oct 18, 2016 23:49:44 GMT
Yes! Other formations leave us seriously exposed on the wings. We always seem to be chasing from f**k ups resulting from playing a 3 at the back.
Monty or Moore typically come on and make a difference. Whilst we're at it we can stop starting Sinclair and Ollie Clarke too. We've got Boateng, Colkettt, Moore, Bodin and Montano and we start with these two and become explosive when they leave the pitch to be replaced by one of the others. Bodin needs to pull his finger out of his arse though because he hasn't been the same this season.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Oct 18, 2016 23:58:52 GMT
Yes! Other formations leave us seriously exposed on the wings. We always seem to be chasing from f**k ups resulting from playing a 3 at the back. Monty or Moore typically come on and make a difference. Whilst we're at it we can stop starting Sinclair and Ollie Clarke too. We've got Boateng, Colkettt, Moore, Bodin and Montano and we start with these two and become explosive when they leave the pitch to be replaced by one of the others. Bodin needs to pull his finger out of his arse though because he hasn't been the same this season. Agree with midfield choice of who should be starting. Bodin needs to be back out wide like he was last season. He not great on the centre of the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Oct 19, 2016 0:04:33 GMT
I would go with 4-5-1, Taylor lone striker. Allows movement from attacking midfield particularly suited when Easter is available. Solid at the back with variety upfront. I haven't seen a two striker combination upfront that looks like any sort of partnership.
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Oct 19, 2016 0:06:59 GMT
Yes! Other formations leave us seriously exposed on the wings. We always seem to be chasing from f**k ups resulting from playing a 3 at the back. Monty or Moore typically come on and make a difference. Whilst we're at it we can stop starting Sinclair and Ollie Clarke too. We've got Boateng, Colkettt, Moore, Bodin and Montano and we start with these two and become explosive when they leave the pitch to be replaced by one of the others. Bodin needs to pull his finger out of his arse though because he hasn't been the same this season. Agree with midfield choice of who should be starting. Bodin needs to be back out wide like he was last season. He not great on the centre of the pitch. Although they're at opposite side of the pitch Bodin seems to be at his best when montano is on the pitch too. I guess given the chosen formation to make that possible. I quite rate montano and think he gets a raw deal, as does Moore who could interchange nicely with the two of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 0:21:10 GMT
I always prefer 442 as we look much more organised and every player knows exactly where they should be and their responsibilities. But, 1) Have we got good enough wingers to play the system? and 2) Who do you partner Lines with in the middle? (Imo he's a starter every week) Players like Colkett, Boateng and Sinclair probably need to be in a three man midfield... I would play 5 3 2 personally. Lines colckett and Boateng in midfield. I cant understand why Boateng cant get a game. He was excellent at Sheff Utd. I would like DC to stop d!cking about with tge defence to ideally not that will ever happen because the way he works. But we have a different backline every game can only think that contributes to our inability to keep a clean sheet. Thank god we have taylor too, in Jan if Wael said DC here you go sign someone, i would love to see another striker come in. Gaffeney and Harrison make great impact players but arent prolific enough. you would play a midfield with nobody that can tackle/get stuck in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 0:24:39 GMT
Yes! Other formations leave us seriously exposed on the wings. We always seem to be chasing from f**k ups resulting from playing a 3 at the back. Monty or Moore typically come on and make a difference. Whilst we're at it we can stop starting Sinclair and Ollie Clarke too. We've got Boateng, Colkettt, Moore, Bodin and Montano and we start with these two and become explosive when they leave the pitch to be replaced by one of the others. Bodin needs to pull his finger out of his arse though because he hasn't been the same this season. but you and signup are advocating a midfield of creative decent footballers who cant tackle and are not comfortable defending??
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Oct 19, 2016 5:19:58 GMT
The fact we end up playing 442 by FT every week tells its own story. I think the main issue though is not having a settled back 4. We've built two promotions on a settled defence and clean sheets. Now we concede goals for fun and we only get away with it by throwing the kitchen sink at teams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 6:37:36 GMT
Why change successful strategy?
So if we go 1 down in 442, then what?
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Oct 19, 2016 6:56:04 GMT
Why change successful strategy? So if we go 1 down in 442, then what? We'em fecked my son
|
|
|
Post by rocknrollaayatollah on Oct 19, 2016 8:20:29 GMT
I'm happy with what DC's doing at the moment. Don't change Darrell, don't change.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 19, 2016 9:03:06 GMT
If it ain't broke, don't break it.
I've long since given up criticizing DCs signings, tactics, formations and selection.
I've never been happier as a Rovers fan.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 19, 2016 9:07:26 GMT
DC moves in mystery ways.
Anyone who says he has an inkling of an understanding of this arcane and powerful force is lying and should be stoned to death for blasphemy.
|
|